What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[donners22]

What I would argue is the TNG characters connected to the audience where when things people consider dumb happened (e.g., Borg DNA, long lost unknown family, etc.) the characterizations were able to pull the audience through that because they gave a shit what happened to these people. They cared about Riker's and Troi's relationship. They cared about Picard's connection to Jack. They cared about Data's future and for frickin' Spot.

Was there really much investment in Picard's relationship with Jack? The interest seemed to be almost exclusively the return of TNG elements. Jack was, in many ways, simply a walking mystery box. His lack of appeal would, I suspect, be very quickly revealed if he was to have a lead role in a new show.

As for the greater connection with the characters, I'd suggest that is more to do with familiarity and nostalgia than a difference in the quality of character writing. Troi in particular was notoriously regarded as a badly-written character. Behr and Moore spoke openly about how much they disliked writing TNG characters, being bound to do so in such bland and artificial ways.

Much of the fanbase grew up with these characters, and have seen them in 170-odd episodes many times over. Of course there will be greater investment for many such fans in them than new characters which have only been seen more recently in far fewer episodes.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

TOS was -- and is -- never going to have what feels like a natural prequel. No sense in getting bent out of shape about what will never be.

Agreed.

It's also why I always prefer going forward over going backward. Because then it doesn't matter.

Well, part of the reason they continue to raid or trample on the TOS vault stems from a habitual failure to create compelling, memorable characters and...

TELL YOUR OWN STORY.

Quit relying on established characters like Kirk, Spock, Pike, etc. Do your own thing. Make your own characters. Tell your own story instead of constantly trying to recreate Wrath of Khan.

TOS is the defining chapter of ST as a concept, franchise, and pop culture phenomenon, so talentless showrunners and writers will try to milk its most iconic chapter over and over again. On the other hand, some CBS-Trek critics have argued that the new showrunner(s) constantly revisit concepts created by TOS not due to any reverence for the material, but a desire to retcon it to the point where their material is supposed to be the "real version" of this fictional universe, hence no less than the existence of two TOS prequel series doing just that to varying degrees.

 

[fireproof78]

They revisit TOS because it's a) got the most familiarity and b) it's safe.

You don't want safe? Don't buy SNW, or anything TOS adjacent.

 

[cooleddie74]

Trek's been playing in the TOS prequel sandbox for nearly 23 years. Doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon. But at least SNW is delivering consistent entertainment on its own terms and after the - at best - disjointed and uneven content of Seasons 1 and 2 of DSC we finally have a Kurtzman Era TOS prequel that looks and feels right. That has a spirit of adventure and fun.

 

[fireproof78]

All about the feels, baby!

 

[Macintosh]

You don't have to relate to somebody to wince when you see them get smacked by a speeding garbage truck.

True... but on the other hand, relating to someone helps me not just shrug and go "meh" when they fall out of the bottom of the ship.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Once the dust has settled, many years from now, after SNW has been cancelled and we go through a few years with no Star Trek, I think the next iteration of the show should be a reboot. From the ground up.

The next generation of Star Trek should close the door on any previous canon and one way or another, start making its own.

 

[Lord Garth]

Once the dust has settled, many years from now, after SNW has been cancelled and we go through a few years with no Star Trek, I think the next iteration of the show should be a reboot. From the ground up.

The next generation of Star Trek should close the door on any previous canon and one way or another, start making its own.

I think they won't do that. They've had multiple chances. In 2009, they had the perfect chance to do a complete break and, even there, they wouldn't fully commit to it. They wanted Leonard Nimoy, and they wanted everything the same up until Kirk's birith.

Star Trek is like Doctor Who. It'll continue its lore forever, without ever doing anything more than soft-reboots here and there. But they'll never do a hard-reboot. It led me to a conclusion I came to back in 2007, regarding any future versions of Star Trek: "It won't be as much the same as some people want, but it also won't be as different as some other people want."

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I think they won't do that. They've had multiple chances. In 2009, they had the perfect chance to do a complete break and, even there, they wouldn't fully commit to it. Star Trek is like Doctor Who. It'll continue its lore forever, without ever doing anything more than soft-reboots here and there. But they'll never do a hard-reboot.

It led me to a conclusion I came to back in 2007, regarding any future versions of Star Trek: "It won't be as much the same as some people want, and it won't be as different as some other people want."

I think it works for Doctor Who because the central character has that inbuilt ability to be recast. The narrative can spin on and on when it has a shape-shifter that is essentially immortal at the centre of it.

Years from now, when they decide they want to tap into TOS (or maybe even TNG) for a recast... well, now many times can they say it's all the same thing when there's so much visual dissonance?

I don't disagree with you thinking they won't do it. I just wish they would. Like Marvel and Ultimate Marvel.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I prefer Bruce Greenwood's Pike over Anson Mount's.

 

[Tallguy]

and they wanted everything the same up until Kirk's birith.

THAT'S debatable. I mean, that's the "rule" that they set down. But they were never going to follow it.

I prefer Bruce Greenwood's Pike over Anson Mount's.

I love Greenwood's Pike. But that's just silly. (Maybe even... CONTROVERSIAL.)

 

[Lord Garth]

THAT'S debatable. I mean, that's the "rule" that they set down. But they were never going to follow it.

The point is they bothered to have a Fig Leaf. A true hard-reboot never would've done that. '00s Battlestar Galactica would never use the pretense it had ANY connection with '70s Battlestar Galactica.

 

[Farscape One]

Other than easter eggs, like Felgercarb toothpaste.

 

[herofhyrule]

THAT'S debatable. I mean, that's the "rule" that they set down. But they were never going to follow it.

What do you mean? They never introduced anything that contradicted the Prime Timeline pre-2233.

 

[Citiprime]

/

What do you mean? They never introduced anything that contradicted the Prime Timeline pre-2233.

In Star Trek Beyond, Krall/Edison name drops the Xindi and the Earth-Romulan War, and the USS Franklin (NX-326) is introduced as one of the first of the "Warp 4 capable" ships created by Starfleet in the 2160s. But Star Trek: Enterprise takes place in the 2150s, and the NX-01 is the first of Starfleet's "Warp 5 capable" ships. So it doesn’t exactly fit.

Anyway, I think the demands for new characters and new settings rings a little false or is sending an incomplete picture. Why? Because whenever we have them, those same people complain about how they don't care about the new characters and don't like the new setting.

But isn't it possible to want new characters and settings, and also think the ones they attempt aren't good? People didn't like the Ferengi in TNG season 1. That wasn't an indication that the show should just go back to the Klingons, because if they had done that we would have never gotten the Borg.

Beyond that, my issue is that people's criticisms about "memberberries" and "nostalgia" are highly selective. Some of the same people that denigrate Picard season 3 as being just "fanwank" will then praise and defend to the last Strange New Worlds when they decide to use a legacy character or namedrops some familiar things and places in a way that's tangential.

 

[Lord Garth]

Beyond that, my issue is that people's criticisms about "memberberries" and "nostalgia" are highly selective. Some of the same people that denigrate Picard season 3 as being just "fanwank" will then praise and defend to the last Strange New Worlds when they decide to use a legacy character or namedrops some familiar things and places in a way that's tangential.

Agree with you here 100%. "We don't want TNG back! Let's relive TOS over and over again!" Like I said in another thread, it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Then there's another thing. Despite how long I've been here, I'm on the younger end of the board's members (I wasn't even 20 yet when I first registered in 1999). My definition of "nostalgia" is the '50s through '80s. Maybe I'll go so far as to say early-'90s. If someone's my age and calling something from 1996 or 2002 "nostalgia", I think they're full of shit. Forget about someone older than me.

 

[Tallguy]

Beyond that, my issue is that people's criticisms about "memberberries" and "nostalgia" are highly selective. Some of the same people that denigrate Picard season 3 as being just "fanwank" will then praise and defend to the last Strange New Worlds when they decide to use a legacy character or namedrops some familiar things and places in a way that's tangential.

That's because SNW has not yet ever been "just" fanwank, IMNVHO.

 

[herofhyrule]

/
In Star Trek Beyond, Krall/Edison name drops the Xindi and the Earth-Romulan War, and the USS Franklin (NX-326) is introduced as one of the first of the "Warp 4 capable" ships created by Starfleet in the 2160s. But Star Trek: Enterprise takes place in the 2150s, and the NX-01 is the first of Starfleet's "Warp 5 capable" ships. So it doesn’t exactly fit.

It's not explicitly stated as being built in the 2160s. Background information for the film states that it was originally built by the United Earth Starfleet before the NX-01, and then when the Federation was formed in 2161 it was transferred to the Federation Starfleet.

 

[Lord Garth]

That's because SNW has not yet ever been "just" fanwank, IMNVHO.

Spoiler

"Fanwank" is the TNG crew dealing with a TNG enemy in a show that's named Picard? No offense, but give me a break!

That's like saying fighting the Klingons in TUC was "fanwank". Double-standard. More accurately: DOUBLE STANDARD! And oh no! They referenced TSFS and Kirk's grief from losing his son! Oh no! "It's da MeMbErBeRrIeS!!!"

To quote Azetbur, "If you could only hear yourselves."

 

[Tallguy]

Agree with you here 100%. "We don't want TNG back! Let's relive TOS over and over again!" Like I said in another thread, it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Has anyone said "We don't want TNG back?" I think the issue is that despite the cast Picard wasn't very good at bringing TNG back other than in the most superficial way.

SNW is probably better at doing TOS than the actual TOS movies.

If someone's my age and calling something from 1996 or 2002 "nostalgia", I think they're full of shit. Forget about someone older than me.

I'm older than you and I can totally have nostalgia for the 90's. American Graffiti (from that Star Wars guy) was absolute nostalgia and it was set not even 15 years prior to when it was made.

Spoiler

"Fanwank" is the TNG crew dealing with a TNG enemy in a show that's named Picard? No offense, but give me a break!

That's like saying fighting the Klingons in TUC was "fanwank". Double-standard. More accurately: DOUBLE STANDARD!

Well, my response was that anything that wasn't "Oh! Remember THIS?" from Pic (esp. 3) was quite often hot garbage.

Spoiler

It was nice to see the D. Something that the TOS movies never did with their TV ship.

But for me all that did was just underline how not like TNG the show was.